[PLUG-TALK] Religion is not bad...

Aaron ke7ezt at gmail.com
Fri Oct 30 16:53:18 UTC 2009


All,

I wanted to apologise for taking this initial thread in this direction.  I
thought Michael would be interested in a legitimate conversation about
religion--however I now see that he is not.  This is just another reminder
of why I usually don't like to debate religion.

My last addition to this thread is this posting that I wrote up awhile ago
for as to why I don't believe in god.

http://kalosaurusrex.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-im-athiest.html

Michael--It is refreshing to see that people still feel as strongly for
their beliefs.  A lot of people are wishy washy on what they believe and are
hypocritical to that.  I do think however you'll find that letting people be
who they are and accept that will make you a little happier.  I am an
atheist.  I am not a bad person.  I've read read the Bible.  I've gone to
many different types of churchs (including catholic) to see if I could find
something that was similar to my core values.  The Christian church doesn't
do it for me.  I find it fake, hypocritical and misleading.  Not to mention
every time I go into a church that has 60" flat screen monitors and a 12,000
square foot worship centre I am disgusted.  This is NOT what Christ would
have wanted and I find it to be a disgusting waste of resources when people
in the world are dying of starvation and don't have basic human needs met.
So after reading the Bible, going and seeing how -most- Christian churches
work I decided it's not what my values are.  I don't think there needs to be
a god to have love.  I do think humanity is better off without religion. I
think religion (in general) is a crutch for people that can't make their
lives how they want and can't take responsibility for their own personal
growth and purpose.

Atheism is on the rise--and in America the last stat I was read was at 15%
and going up.  Religion is not meeting the needs of the people and as is
true in a true democracy the people have the freedom to choose what they
believe.

If you don't think people should have the freedom to choose what they want
to believe in you life in the wrong country.  Regardless if you believe it
is correct or incorrect to not believe in god "we the people" have the
freedom to choose. Not you.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.  At the very least it's been
interesting (and a little scary) to know that some people still don't
believe in the freedom to choose ones owns beliefs.

Again--I apologise to everyone else for continuing this thread.  I now have
a much better understanding of what Michael believes and don't feel that
it's constructive to continue the debate (myself).

PLUG rules!

Aaron



aaron at kalosaurusrex:~$
Discere docendo - To learn through teaching.
Libera Te Tutemet - You, free yourself.




On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:16, wes <plug at the-wes.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Michael Robinson <
> plug_1 at robinson-west.com> wrote:
>
>> Anti religious rhetoric is as much telling me what to believe as
>> religious rhetoric could be construed as me telling you what to
>> believe.
>>
>
> Fight fire with fire.
>
> > ... What makes you "the problem" is that you feel that you have the
>> > right to tell us, or more specifically, me, what to believe. And
>> > further, you feel that it would be desirable for government to
>> > prescribe these beliefs as well. This is a very scary idea, to which I
>> > am strongly opposed.
>>
>> This is a blanket statement with no basis in reality.  I have
>> not advocated for a state religion at any time in my postings.
>> I have hinted at what I think you should believe, that is all.
>>
>
> It is not a blanket statement, it is a very specific statement that serves
> as a summary of your own words. It's very interesting that you deny the
> meaning of your own words.
>
> You fear God and anyone who believes in Him.
>
>
> I do not fear God, nor do I fear everyone who believes in Him. I fear you.
> I fear that people like you will make life miserable and unbearable for me
> and the people of the future.
>
> The answer isn't I
>> don't know all the time, sometimes it is faith.
>
>
> If that's what you need, fine. I don't.
>
> I don't claim
>> to have all the answers because I have faith.  Without faith
>> Man is limited to what he can absolutely prove scientifically
>> which is not very much if you really think hard for a while.
>>
>
> It's enough for me. If it's not for you, I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean
> you can tell me your answer is the right answer.
>
> We think we know everything or are capable of knowing a lot,
>> but our knowledge is like a little hole on the beach filled
>> with sea water next to the whole ocean which represents how
>> much there is to know.
>
>
> I agree that there is a lot more that we don't know than we do. I'm not
> denying the existence of the ocean, I'm just saying that I don't know what's
> on the other side, and neither can you without faith.
>
> Refusing to accept that belief
>> in God is neither ridiculous nor a sign of weakness, that
>> saddens me.
>>
>
> I do not understand this sentence at all.
>
> Any Man without faith is a Man who cannot see beyond his human
>> limitations.  One must look with the eyes of the soul, not the
>> eyes in one's head.
>>
>
> You only think you can see beyond your human limitations. You can't really
> see beyond. At least I know my own limits. This knowledge is very valuable
> to me.
>
>  Scientifically speaking, it is highly controversial with the available
>> information to claim that there was no divine hand at work for the
>> Earth to reach the level of order that it has.
>
>
> Wrong. Scientifically speaking, it makes perfect sense for the structure of
> nature to be as ordered as it is (which may not be as ordered as you think
> it is). There is some order, but there is at least as much disorder and
> chaos.
>
> Life is not common
>> in our solar system, look at any other planet that we know of and
>> at most you might find some bacteria which probably came from Earth.
>>
>
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
> Only a literal interpretation of the bible, which is not necessarily
>> valid, would have everything created in a 1000 years or less.
>
>
> So again, the church is picking and choosing what to teach in order to
> appeal to the widest audience possible. When science discovered evolution,
> the church decried it as sacrilege and anyone who indulged in considering it
> was branded a heretic. Scientists had to fight with the church in order to
> gain acceptance. They continued that fight, against people like you, until
> finally it has come to be widely accepted (though still not globally, thanks
> again to people like you).
>
> The
>> Catholic church has never taught that the seven day creation story
>> is to be taken literally with regard to the time scale.
>
>
> Wrong. The Catholic church taught exactly that until about 1-2 hundred
> years ago.
>
> Furthermore,
>> the Catholic church does NOT teach that evolution and creation are
>> incompatible.
>
>
> Not any more, because it was costing them too many members.
>
> Why can't God use evolution?
>
>
> Sure, He can. Why can't evolution happen without God?
>
> What gives anyone the
>> right let alone the ability to tie His hands and say sorry God you
>> have to create in such a way that there's no doubt you did it?
>>
>
> No one is trying to tell God to do anything. We are merely discussing what
> He may or may not have done. If you won't accept the possibility that I am
> right, I have no reason to listen to you.
>
> Parts of the bible can be taken literally while other parts should
>> not be.
>
>
> How convenient.
>
> Actually, I did hear one YEC fundie explain this in a way that sort of
> started to make sense. Something about how the individual books of the Bible
> were written for a specific audience, meaning they were told what they
> needed to hear in order to get a point across. OK fine, but how about a
> legend at the end that tells us which were "real" and which were "for the
> benefit of the audience?"
>
> There are many legends outside of the bible that have value
>> which should not be taken literally.  The creation story in Genesis
>> sets things up and teaches that there was a beginning, not so much
>> how the beginning really happened.  When reading the bible, you have
>> to know what type of literature it is you are looking at.  There is
>> history in the bible and there are the actual words of Jesus and
>> the Father.  One doesn't expect psalms for example to be a history
>> text though.  One must use proper scholarship when reading the bible
>> and one should consider using other sources of material.
>>
>
> Blah blah blah... pointless.
>
> -wes
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20091030/139f82dc/attachment.html>


More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list